Crickets.Originally Posted by Travlyr
Crickets.
Hiring a hitman is an act of aggression. Period. I'm not going to get into an extended debate on this subject, because its really quite silly. The idea that "its not aggression unless you yourself pull the trigger" has more holes in it than a cheese grater. It doesn't hold up to reality, because you are in effect endorsing the right to hire people to kill others for money, which clearly conflicts with the vast majority of people's concept of natural law. Furthermore, just as a handgun is but a tool, so is a hitman. The person commissioning the hitman has coercive intent, and is simply using a different tool to complete the act. The only difference is that there are now two parties at blame for the murder than just one.
The bottom line is the idea that a person who hires a hitman is "wrong" but shouldn't be held responsible is an outlandishly oversimplified misunderstanding of the NAP. You're probably just trying to justify your apologies of the bankers, but if you do actually really believe this, I'd prefer not to discuss this aspect further. It's not worth my time, so if you disagree on this, then please just agree to disagree and move on, because you will never convince me that hiring a hitman is non-coercive.
The politicians are criminals too. And I would like to see them held accountable for their crimes, just as much as the bankers. The crimes of the politicians does not exculpate the crimes of the bankers. They are both responsible for the crimes of the Fed.Again, you're too much into conspiracy-theories & therefore unwilling to look at facts such as the magnitude of benefits to government & that banks don't get any "free money" as is assumed while I prefer to rely strictly on facts & reason, so there's a fundamental disconnect between the two views which is going to make any fruitful discussion impossible.
I've already proven that the banks make more profit with the Fed than without it. How much profit, can't be proven, but based on the available evidence and the strong correlation between money printed, and bankers profits... I'd say, A LOT.
You're just proving that you're a mindless apologist by calling that a "conspiracy theory"
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
As anyone who has ever argued with you will agree, you're quite the master of diversion & intellectual dishonesty. But nonetheless, just for the heck of it, I'll answer the 3 questions :
No
Yes
Yes
Ok, so that random nonsense is out of the way - here's the point again - you support government robbing & coercing people, which automatically entails that you believe that people in government should have more rights than rest of the people, that is NOT equality at all, in fact, it's like slavery.
Clearly, you don't believe in all people having equal rights to their life, liberty & property!
There is enormous inertia a tyranny of the status quo in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
Why are you still telling people what I believe. Clearly, your understanding of what I believe is wrong. I subscribe to classical liberal philosophy as described by Ludwig von Mises.
It is amazing to me the number of people on this forum who can not understand the proper role of government. Read Mises, "Liberalism, State and Government"
Private ownership of the means of production not the private ownership of everything in the world."The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand."
I do not support government robbing people. I want the counterfeiting to stop ASAP. End the Fed tomorrow by legalizing competing currencies.
I also do not see all taxation as theft. I understand some taxes are fees for services. I do agree with Mises. What really baffles me is the number of people who read LvMI and disagree with Mises himself. I believe, like Mises, that a state is a necessary good in which to provide law administered by government officials.
We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government.
In fact, defining coercion upon "intent" is a big blackhole, it's a pandora's box of its own. Let's go back to the parents starving their children, again, are they obligated to feed them? Is anyone obligated to feed anyone? No. The "intent" in this case is obvious, it's going to lead to children's death but does that mean the parents are using coercion? No.
Let's say a Christian priest desecrates Qur'an or photo of Mohammed or whatever with an "intent" to incite Muslims & demonstrate their violent nature, then some Muslims riot, vandalize & let's say kill some Christians, did the Christian priest commit coercion upon anyone? No.
As I've said, once you start trying to criminalize people based on "intent", it's going to lead to all kinds of scenarios where arbitrary judgments are going to be have to be made & people are going to disagree quite a bit & all you're going to end up with is crappy laws, words of which can be manipulated more wildly by lawyers, good for lawyers, good for their criminal-clients, bad for the society as a whole.
That's why it's important to keep laws simple & solid, so that they can't be wildly manipulated - if a person commits an act that's not voluntary, then it's not justifiable.
Further, there may be People-A (let's say like the person hiring the hitman) & People-B (like the hitman) - now, the incidence of crime is going to be higher in a society where both types of people exist compared to a society where People-B don't exist.
Somebody may want someone else killed but the mere "intent" itself is never sufficient to kill, it requires people willing to use direct coercion (like People-B), if nobody is willing to use coercion & kill then nobody dies no matter how much someone wants to kill somebody else, so given that he has a free choice, only the hitman can be said to engage in an unjustifiable, involuntary, coercive act.
As for trying to convince, I'd not try to convince any conspiracy-theorist because their views rely heavily on their imaginary world full of conspiracies, where anyone with a different view on things & anyone who doesn't share their delusions is immediately considered to be the part of the conspiracy, a "banker-apologist" or "disinformation-agent" or whatever. They have trouble being objective about things so the only way they are going to come around on any issue is if they somehow develop a more objective approach of looking at things but that realization has to come from inside, nobody can convince them of that.
It's not a question of exculpating the government so much but it's the act of inculpating the private non-coercive actors that leads people in general (may be not you personally) to adopt a mentality that "all we've to do is disentangle the private influence within the government & government won't misuse it's coercive powers". Travlyr is a typical example of this, where he believes that "if only the government was decoupled from 'evil bankers' then government will be nice despite its coercive powers". Then there are the typical socialists who also think government will be great if we could just weed that the evil private influence, again, not realizing that the private influence exists only to benefit off of government's coercive powers!
In order to sidestep such delusions, it's important to be specific about the root of the problem, & that must be the coercive powers of the government, because blaming non-coercive private actors causes most people to disregard the root of the problem & they continue to engage in socialist fantasies of various kinds.
No, you haven't proven anything, if it's about the PDs then here's the thing, whether Fed exists or not, PDs would still exist so long as government values their participation because as I've repeatedly pointed out, PDs are there to keep the markets liquid & spreads low, which allows the government to maximize its revenues from selling Treasuries/debt. So even if Fed were shut down tomorrow, PDs would likely continue to exist so your assumption that bankers support Fed to preserve their profits on PD-business is utterly fallacious.
And calling me "banker apologist" or whatever doesn't change anything about facts & facts are that you don't understand how the Fed works, you seem unable to grasp the magnitude of monetary benefit extracted by the government because of the Fed, you won't even bother to learn history & realize that governments have always tried to control issue of money & current times are no different. The only thing you "know" is the typical OWS approach that bankers are evil because they are making lots of money in ways that you can't comprehend so all those videos & articles out there saying that "bankers are evil" must be true
There is enormous inertia a tyranny of the status quo in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
Why modest inflation? Because the economy is only just beginning to recover. Inflation will become a concern only if and when the economy brings it on 1999 style. Personally, I'm ready to party like it's 1999.
Also, the Fed's policies are not nearly as inflationary as some believe.
Your reading skills are horrible dude, and your writing skills are deceitful. Why are you writing false crap about me? That's bullshit. Why are you telling people what I believe when you don't have a frikken clue?
I know that psychopaths gravitate toward government power no matter what. I also know that when enough people understand how the Federal Reserve System is stealing most of our individual wealth, then the counterfeiters will go the way of the dinosaur, and government will shrink to little of nothing because they will starve.
All taxation is by definition theft/robbery as it is extracted forcibly from people, there's no choice, something that anybody who believes in equal rights won't find justifiable.
And taxation & user fees aren't always the same, taxation is coercive & extracted arbitrarily irrespective of whether a service was used or not, irrespective of the extent of the usage while user fees mayn't be so.
Besides, you support conscription, which is coercive & a form of slavery!
Anybody that truly supports freedom & believes in everyone having equal rights to life, liberty & property so they'll will ONLY support VOLUNTARY ACTION, no coercion of any kind because that would violate the principle of equal rights - & this doesn't seem to be the case with you!
Why is everyone obligated to agree with Mises or Ron or anyone? They aren't. People can have different opinions, if Mises was a minarchist then that doesn't mean everybody here must be a minarchist, just because Ron is a Christian doesn't mean everybody here must be a Christian....
Besides, it seems Mises believed in micro-secession & you don't seem to, so why do you disagree with Mises?
There is enormous inertia a tyranny of the status quo in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
You have horrible reading skills. You still have no clue what I believe yet you are quite willing to tell others.All taxation is by definition theft/robbery as it is extracted forcibly from people, there's no choice, something that anybody who believes in equal rights won't find justifiable.
And taxation & user fees aren't always the same, taxation is coercive & extracted arbitrarily irrespective of whether a service was used or not, irrespective of the extent of the usage while user fees mayn't be so.
Besides, you support conscription, which is coercive & a form of slavery!
Anybody that truly supports freedom & believes in everyone having equal rights to life, liberty & property so they'll will ONLY support VOLUNTARY ACTION, no coercion of any kind because that would violate the principle of equal rights - & this doesn't seem to be the case with you!
Why is everyone obligated to agree with Mises or Ron or anyone? They aren't. People can have different opinions, if Mises was a minarchist then that doesn't mean everybody here must be a minarchist, just because Ron is a Christian doesn't mean everybody here must be a Christian....
Besides, it seems Mises believed in micro-secession & you don't seem to, so why do you disagree with Mises?
Pulling a trigger = coercive intent. Telling another to pull a trigger = coercive intent. Intentionally withholding food = intentionally withholding food. One is an active attack on another, and the other is passive non-action. It's apples and oranges.
Again, this idea that the person that hires the hitman isn't morally accountable has more holes than a cheese grater. You can write another small novel on it if you like, but doesn't change this fact.
Ah, the classic "conspiracy-theorist" card. The go-to argument when you have nothing constructive to say and simply wish to discredit via personal attacks.As for trying to convince, I'd not try to convince any conspiracy-theorist because their views rely heavily on their imaginary world full of conspiracies, where anyone with a different view on things & anyone who doesn't share their delusions is immediately considered to be the part of the conspiracy, a "banker-apologist" or "disinformation-agent" or whatever. They have trouble being objective about things so the only way they are going to come around on any issue is if they somehow develop a more objective approach of looking at things but that realization has to come from inside, nobody can convince them of that.
I haven't proven that the bankers make more money with the Fed than without it? Just how dense are you? a) It's simple economics, b) I posted it earlier, c) you still haven't addressed it - at all.It's not a question of exculpating the government so much but it's the act of inculpating the private non-coercive actors that leads people in general (may be not you personally) to adopt a mentality that "all we've to do is disentangle the private influence within the government & government won't misuse it's coercive powers". Travlyr is a typical example of this, where he believes that "if only the government was decoupled from 'evil bankers' then government will be nice despite its coercive powers". Then there are the typical socialists who also think government will be great if we could just weed that the evil private influence, again, not realizing that the private influence exists only to benefit off of government's coercive powers!
In order to sidestep such delusions, it's important to be specific about the root of the problem, & that must be the coercive powers of the government, because blaming non-coercive private actors causes most people to disregard the root of the problem & they continue to engage in socialist fantasies of various kinds.
No, you haven't proven anything, if it's about the PDs then here's the thing, whether Fed exists or not, PDs would still exist so long as government values their participation because as I've repeatedly pointed out, PDs are there to keep the markets liquid & spreads low, which allows the government to maximize its revenues from selling Treasuries/debt. So even if Fed were shut down tomorrow, PDs would likely continue to exist so your assumption that bankers support Fed to preserve their profits on PD-business is utterly fallacious.
And calling me "banker apologist" or whatever doesn't change anything about facts & facts are that you don't understand how the Fed works, you seem unable to grasp the magnitude of monetary benefit extracted by the government because of the Fed, you won't even bother to learn history & realize that governments have always tried to control issue of money & current times are no different. The only thing you "know" is the typical OWS approach that bankers are evil because they are making lots of money in ways that you can't comprehend so all those videos & articles out there saying that "bankers are evil" must be true
It's proven they make more money with the Fed than without it. Your denial of this simple economic fact speaks volumes.
The bankers, out of their own personal greed and avarice, have contracted the government into building and maintaining a monetary system designed to steal from me, and give it to bankers and politicians. They lie through their teeth to protect the system for their own wealth, and show zero concern for the monstrous tyrannical government they have built with the system they created.
Your denial of this, again, speaks volumes.
Last edited by bxm042; 11-04-2012 at 11:34 AM.
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote